u 


ELEVATED  RAILROAD. 


A  R GUMENT 


OF 


HON.  JAMES  A.  M'’GEOUOH. 


BEFORE 


COMMITTEE  ON  STREET  RAILWAYS, 


January  23,  1884. 


BOSTON : 

WRIGHT  &  POTTER  PRINTING  CO.,  STATE  PRINTERS. 

IS  Post  Office  Square. 

1884. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


Class  Book  Volume 


Ja  G9-2®M 


ELEVATED  RAILROAD. 


ARGUMENT 

'  1  r ,  f  /  f  \ 

or  V I  I  ■  ;  .  :|  :  :  I 

;  l1 1  >  I- I  / 

HON.  JAMES  A.  MCOEOUGH, 


BEFORE  THE 


COMMITTEE  ON  STREET  RAILWAYS, 


January  23,  1884. 


BOSTON  : 

WRIGHT  &  POTTER  PRINTING  CO.,  STATE  PRINTERS/ 

18  Post  Office  Square. 

1884. 


4 


A  U  GUMEN  T. 


Mr.  Chairman ,  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee : 


v? 

r- 


0 


O-  - 


f\i- 

* 

6 


After  the  able  and  eloquent  speeches  of  the  gentlemen 
who  have  preceded  me,  with  others  to  follow,  it  will  not  be 
necessary  for  me  to  enter  into  any  detailed  consideration  of 
the  evidence,  and  I  shall  endeavor  to  confine  my  remarks, 
so  as  to  trespass  but  briefly  on  your  patience.  For  six 
or  seven  years  past  our  legislature  has  had  before  it 
this  somewhat  difficult  and  important  question  of  Elevated 
Street  Railways.  The  facts  presented  in  evidence  this  year 
are,  I  presume,  much  like  those  of  former  years,  and  the 
parties  in  interest  substantially  the  same.  Capt.  Joe  Y. 
Meigs,  with  his  associates,  who  are  nameless  here,  ask  for 
the  extraordinary  powers,  privileges  and  immunities  of  a 
special  charter,  to  construct  and  operate  an  elevated  railway 
in  the  streets  of  the  city  of  Boston.  I  know  that  “  cities 
and  towns  of  the  Commonwealth”  is  the  language  of  the 
petition  ;  but  Boston  is  the  objective  point.  Such  an  expen¬ 
sive  enterprise  as  this  can  be  expected  to  live  only  in  the 
centre  of  population,  and  the  centre  of  population  this  side  of 
New  York  City  is  here,  in  the  metropolis  of  New  England. 
They  hope  to  get  their  location  right  here  in  the  streets  of 
Boston,  and  this  they  modestly  ask  without  offering  or  in¬ 
tending  to  pay  a  dollar  for  the  privilege.  That  such  a 
structure  erected  in  our  narrow  and  crowded  streets  must 
necessarily  be  a  serious  damage  to  private  property  and  the 
rights  of  individuals  is  useless  to  deny.  The  citizens  of 
Boston,  therefore,  are  directly  concerned,  and  in  behalf  of 


-ft.  24379 


4 


some  of  your  remonstrants  I  am  here.  A  gratuitous  loca¬ 
tion  for  their  tracks  right  through  our  public  streets,  close 
by  the  doors  and  windows  of  our  offices,  stores  and  business 
houses,  and  invading  the  privacy  of  our  very  homes  is  what 
they  ask;  and  this,  too,  for  the  purpose  of  testing  and  put¬ 
ting  in  operation  a  single-post,  single-rail  contrivance  never' 
tried  anywhere  in  the  world  before.  This  is  their  petition. 

Now,  I  am  aware  of  no  reason  why  this  question  of  an 
Elevated  Street  Railway  should  not  be  tried  and  determined 
just  as  any  other  question  coming  before  our  legislature ; 
and  as  a  just  and  proper  criterion  by  which  it  ought  to  be 
tried  I  submit  to  you  this  general  proposition  :  The  incor¬ 
poration  of  a  merely  speculative,  experimental  enterprise, 
affecting  the  rights  of  thousands  of  our  citizens,  is  not  wise 
legislation,  unless  there  he  some  great  public  necessity  to  justify 
it.  I  think  nobody  will  take  exception  to  this  proposition. 

It  is  very  well  to  permit  the  easy  incorporation  of  indi¬ 
viduals  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  enterprises  occupying 
their  own  premises,  and  which  concern  those  only  who 
inaugurate  them  —  enterprises  in  which  those,  and  those 
only,  “  who  invest  their  money,  to  profit  by  the  undertaking 
if  successful,  to  lose  if  a  failure,”  can  possibly  be  the  losers. 
But  where  the  very  initial  step  of  a  corporation,  such  as 
this,  affects  the  public  and  interferes  with  the  rights  of 
private  property,  you  ought  to  be  exceedingly  careful  how 
you  give  it  an  existence.  And  when,  in  addition  to  this, 
the  enterprise  itself  is  problematical,  there  ought  to  be,  I 
claim,  some  great  public  necessity  to  justify  it. 

Right  here,  I  beg  you  to  remember,  gentlemen,  that  it  is 
not  the  ingenious  mechanic  and  inventor  that  is  before  you 
alone.  It  is  this  embryo  corporation,  of  which  he  is  to  be 
only  a  member,  with  which  you  really  have  to  deal.  Now, 
why  does  the  State  create  corporations  of  any  kind?  What 
purpose  has  it  in  view?  Is  it  in  order  that  a  few  favored 
individuals  may  have  powers  and  privileges  not  permitted  to 
their  neighbors?  Not  at  all.  Is  it  that  men  of  capital  may 
have  an  opportunity  of  safely  investing  their  money  and 
increasing  their  dividends?  Not  at  all.  Such  is  the  object 
of  the  capitalists,  and  may  be  incidental  to  the  corporation ; 
but  it  is  not  the  purpose  of  the  State.  Or  is  it  for  the  pur- 


5 


\ 


pose  of  assisting  some  gifted  and  deserving  citizen  of  the 
Commonwealth  in  the  development  of  some  great  invention? 
Not  at  all.  This  is  an  argument  that  appeals  to  our  sympa¬ 
thies  and  to  the  bounty  of  the  State,  but  does  not  justify  the 
powers  and  privileges  of  a  corporate  existence.  “  Govern¬ 
ment  is  instituted,  not  for  the  profit,  honor,  or  private  inter¬ 
est  of  any  one  man,  family,  or  class  of  men,”  but  for  the  ben¬ 
efit  of  all.  There  should  be  no  favoritism.  The  extraor¬ 
dinary  right  of  eminent  domain  and  other  powers  of  the 
sovereign  authority  should  not  be  delegated  to  individuals, 
unless  where  it  directly  subserves  the  public  welfare.  In 
other  words,  the  powers  of  the  Commonwealth  should  be 
exercised  only  for  the  common  good,  and  no  corporation  has 
a  right  to  live  only  in  so  far  as  it  serves  the  people. 
Especially  is  this  so  when,  as  in  this  case,  the  rights  of 
thousands  of  our  citizens  are  involved.  I  repeat,  there 
must  be  an  equivalent  —  there  must  be  some  resulting  benefit 
to  the  people,  to  justify  such  legislation. 

Now,  what  is  the  public  benefit  promised  by  this  corpora¬ 
tion?  What  the  urgent  necessity  it  proposes  to  meet? 
Look  at  it,  gentlemen.  From  the  models  shown  you  here, 
and  at  the  rooms  of  the  inventor,  you  may  easily  imagine 
what  this  dark  and  dingy  trellis- work  sprawling  through  our 
city  may  look  like.  Is  it  a  thing  of  beauty?  Will  it  be  an 
ornament  to  our  streets?  Not  even  the  amiable  and  self- 
sacrificing  mayor  of  Somerville,  who  would  have  it  run  right 
by  his  own  door  for  the  benefit  of  his  people,  went  that  far. 
Well,  is  the  obstruction  to  light  and  air,  which  it  must 
necessarily  occasion,  something  to  be  desired?  Is  the  snort¬ 
ing  of  a  steam-engine,  with  the  smoke  and  ashes  and 
noisome  odors,  and  the  clatter  of  passing  trains  right  by  our 
windows  from  early  morning  till  late  at  night,  what  the  peo¬ 
ple  are  praying  for?  These,  with  many  more  that  might  be 
mentioned,  are  all  positive  injuries.  The  annoyance  and 
danger  to  persons  walking  or  driving  beneath  from  the  drip¬ 
ping  of  oil  and  iron  rust,  or  the  occasional  falling  of  a  broken 
wheel  —  we  are  told  that  the  passengers  would  be  safe  ;  and 
even  if  the  train  should  take  a  notion  to  shed  all  its  wheels, 
it  could  not  be  derailed.  Perhaps  so;  but  how  about  the 
people  underneath  ?  Good  business  for  the  undertaker 


6 


would  be  apt  to  be  the  result.  These,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
widespread  damage  and  destruction  to  our  property  and  our 
homes,  are  all  very  positive  and  grievous  injuries.  What 
benefit,  then,  I  ask,  after  inflicting  all  these  injuries,  does 
this  corporation  propose  to  give  ? 

Oh,  “rapid  transit,”  they  cry.  “Rapid  transit”  is  the 
great  necessity  of  the  hour,  and  this  they  propose  to  supply. 
There  is  a  charm  about  it.  In  these  days  of  steam  and 
electricity  we  need  to  travel  fast.  Besides,  they  say  that  at 
the  close  of  each  busy  day,  they  will  take  the  toiling  people 
up  out  of  the  dingy,  fretful,  noisome  city,  —  made  more  so 
by  their  unsightly  structure,  I  submit,  — and  bring  them  out 
to  the  green  fields,  pure  air  and  happy  homes  of  the  country. 
It  is  a  beautiful  idea.  I  desire  to  state  it  fairly  ;  I  desire 
also  that  you  have  an  exact  measure  of  this  benefit  proposed, 
for  by  this  must  they  be  judged. 

The  only  trouble  about  it  is,  —  the  necessity  does  not  exist. 
In  New  York,  before  the  elevated  roads,  rapid  transit  was  a 
necessity  ;  that,  with  nearly  a  million  and  a  half  of  inhabi¬ 
tants  living  on  a  narrow  strip  of  land,  averaging  not  two 
miles  wide  and  some  sixteen  or  eighteen  miles  long,  with 
the  700,000  people  of  Brooklyn,  and  the  populations  of 
Jersey  City,  Newark,  Hoboken,  and  all  the  neighboring  towns 
up  the  Hudson  and  across  the  bay  daily  flocking  in  at  the 
ferries,  and  all  left  at  the  extreme  southern  point  of  the 
island, — to  say  nothing  of  the  transient  population  from 
all  parts  of  the  continent  and  Europe,  equal,  it  is  said,  in  a 
single  day  to  the  whole  population  of  Boston  together,  — 
amounting  in  all  to  about  4,000,000  of  people,  —  with  the 
one  depot  of  the  only  steam  surface  railway  within  the  city 
limits  —  the  Grand  Central  —  some  three  and  a  quarter  miles 
from  the  City  Hall,  —  we  can  easily  understand  the  necessity 
for  “  rapid  transit”  there.  It  was  this  necessity  that  made  the 
elevated  roads  in  New  York  without  compensation  to  abutters 
(the  greatest  outrage  ever  perpetrated  upon  an  innocent 
people)  a  possibility.  But  in  Boston  the  conditions  are  all 
different.  Some  eight  miles  wide  and  nine  or  ten  long,  and 
spreading  out  “all  over  the  dish,”  as  one  of  our  witnesses 
described  it ;  its  population  only  362,000,  and  having  nine  or 
ten  surface  steam  railways,  with  their  depots  all  within  a 


7 


half  mile  of  the  City  Hall,  radiating  like  a  star;  leaving  the 
heart  of  the  city  at  every  point  of  the  compass,  and,  by 
means  of  their  various  branches  and  spurs,  touching  at  every 
city,  town  and  hamlet  for  miles  outside  the  city  in  every 
direction,  thereby  affording  an  almost  unlimited  accommoda¬ 
tion  to  people  who  desire  to  live  in  the  country.  “Rapid 
transit”  a  necessity  here!  Why,  the  thousands  who  come 
into  Boston  daily  don’t  have  to  walk,  nor  are  they  confined 
to  the  accommodation  of  horse  cars  alone.  We  have  rapid 
transit  already.  Therefore,  the  exact  benefit  they  propose 
is,  the  difference  between  the  rapid  transit  we  have  and  the 
more  rapid  transit  they  offer.  That  is  all.  It  is  not  a  ques¬ 
tion  as  between  rapid  transit  and  no  transit  at  all,  as  in  New 
York.  It  is  simply  the  difference  between  what  we  have  and 
what  they  promise.  What  more  is  it,  or  can  it  be,  than 
simply  an  additional  steam  railway  penetrating  farther  into 
the  city?  Now,  let  me  ask,  will  this  in  any  way  begin  to 
compensate  the  people,  the  tax-payers  and  citizens  of  Boston, 
for  the  great  public  nuisance  it  must  be  in  our  streets,  and 
the  endless  damage  it  must  occasion  to  business  and  real 
estate?  No,  gentlemen,  the  very  statement  of  the  question 
shows  the  absurdity  of  the  claim,  and  the  palpable  injustice 
of  such  legislation. 

But  there  are  other  reasons  why  this  legislation  should 
not  be  granted.  Supposing  this  corporation  gets  its  charter 
and  a  location  for  its  tracks ;  it  can’t  live  in  the  city  of 
Boston.  *  It  is  too  expensive  for  the  trade.  Capt.  Meigs 
and  his  witnesses  tell  us  it  will  only  cost  $82,000  per  mile  to 
build.  But  this  doesn’t  take  into  account  the  extra  cost  of  a 
double  row  of  posts  necessary  all  through  our  city  streets, 
where  the  sidewalks  are  so  narrow  that  a  train  cannot  safely 
pass  on  a  single  row.  The  posts  must  be  set  in  ten  inches 
from  the  edgestone  by  ordinance  to  avoid  the  hubs  of 
passing  wheels  in  the  street,  thereby  compelling  them  to  put 
up  a  double  row  of  posts  and  bridge  the  street.  Nor  does 
this  sum  take  into  consideration  the  interference  with  the 
sewers,  water-mains,  gas-pipes,  etc.  ;  the  setting  of  the 
posts  through  the  cellars  occupied  by  our  business  houses 
under  the  sidewalks  ;  the  driving  of  piles  in  the  filled  dis¬ 
tricts  of  the  city  to  reach  hard  bottom,  and  the  crossing  of 


8 


tide  waters  —  difficulties  with  which  the  New  York  road  had 
not  to  contend — all  of  which  add  largely  to  the  expense.  Then 
reckon  the  cost  of  stations  and  rolling  stock,  the  paying  of 
employees  and  maintaining  the  road  after  it  is  built.  Add 
to  this  the  cost  of  taking  property  necessary  for  station  pur¬ 
poses  and  the  turning  of  short  corners,  together  with  the 
still  greater  outlay  for  damages  to  business  and  real  estate 
all  along  the  line,  and  you  may  have  some  faint  conception 
of  the  enormous  amount  of  money  necessary  to  such  an 
enterprise.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  New  York  roads 
paid  no  consequential  damages.  They  stole  their  location. 
But  this  corporation  promises  to  pay  all  damages.  Now, 
one  of  our  witnesses,  an  assessor  of  the  City  of  Boston  for 
twenty  years  and  a  competent  expert,  testified  that  the 
damages  in  one  short  block  on  Congress  Street,  between 
State  and  Post  Office  Square,  would  be  as  much  as  twenty- 
five  or  thirty  per  cent.  And  it  was  stated  on  authority 
upon  the  floor  of  the  House  in  1879,  I  remember,  that  In 
case  the  road  should  run  down  Washington  Street,  the 
damages  there,  from  Corn  hi  11  to  Essex  Street,  to  real  estate 
alone,  would  be  no  less  than  $10,000,000.  Then,  how  many 
miles  of  railway  think  you  would  it  require  to  accommodate 
the  people  of  Boston  as  New  York  is  accommodated?  There 
four  lines,  running  north  and  south,  and  only  eighteen  miles 
in  all,  serve  the  purpose.  Just  think.  A  line  towards 
Quincy,  for  instance,  in  a  southerly  direction,  would  be  no 
accommodation  for  the  people  of  Somerville,  and  these  two 
lines  could  be  no  possible  benefit  to  a  man  living  in 
Brighton,  nor  would  any  of  these  lines  be  any  accommoda¬ 
tion  to  citizens  of  Boxbury.  You  see,  in  order  to  accommo¬ 
date  the  whole  population,  and  to  get  the  patronage ,  they 
would  have  to  cover  the  territory,  and,  to  secure  speed  and 
safety,  double  tracks  would  everywhere  be  necessary.  So 
that,  instead  of  having  a  cheaper  road,  it  is  far  more  likely 
to  be  at  least  fully  as  expensive  an  undertaking  as  the  New 
York  system,  which,  it  is  said,  cost  $500,000  per  mile  to 
build,  and — allowing  for  watered  stock  —  50,000,000  of 
dollars  altogether.  It  can’t  be  done,  gentlemen.  Such 
a  road  as  this  cannot  be  built  in  the  City  of  Boston, 
and  live.  Why,  it  has  been  demonstrated  by  the 


9 


commissioners,  that  the  elevated  roads  in  New  York  can¬ 
not  afford  to  reduce  the  day  fares  to  five  cents.  Last 
year,  you  remember,  the  legislature  passed  a  law  com¬ 
pelling  them,  and  the  governor  vetoed  the  bill  to  save  them 
from  bankruptcy.  And  yet  they  have,  as  I  have  shown, 
4,000,000  of  people  to  feed  them.  Now,  there  are  not 
2,000,000  in  all  Massachusetts  together  —  some  1,800,000, 

I  believe  —  so  that,  if  all  the  people  of  Massachusetts  flocked 
into  the  City  of  Boston  daily,  it  would  be  insufficient  for 
their  support.  Besides,  the  surface  steam  roads,  powerful 
and  fully  equipped,  are  not  going  to  discontinue  their  pas¬ 
senger  service,  nor  will  the  people  living  on  those  roads 
desert  them,  unless  better  and  more  conveniently  accommo¬ 
dated  elsewhere.  Now,  then, — here,  in  a  city  of  only 
362,000  people,  —  when  you  add  to  the  plentiful  lack  of 
travel  and  population  this  competition  of  nine  or  ten  surface 
roads,  to  say  nothing  of  the  horse  car  railways  covering  our 
city  in  all  directions  like  a  network,  can  anybody  figure  out 
how  this  elevated  road  is  going  to  live?  Impossible,  gentle¬ 
men.  As  an  enterprise  it  lacks  the  elements  of  success.  It 
is  far  too  expensive  for  the  trade ;  no  necessity  exists  for 
the  trial,  and  they  make  out  no  case  to  justify  this  special 
legislation. 

But  another  objection  remains.  I  have  spoken  of  this 
Meigs  railway  thus  far  as  if  it  were  a  mechanical  success, 
while  the  fact  is,  it  is  as  yet,  but  an  untried  experiment. 
You  remember  a  gentleman  of  the  Committee  yesterday 
asked  if  the  road  could  not  be  tested  at  a  stone  quarry  some¬ 
where  by  building  a  short  piece  on  a  steep  incline,  and  Mr. 
Clark,  their  attorney,  answered,  “No,  as  that  would  only 
test  its  climbing  capacity,  and  they  had  many  other  points  to 
prove,  such  as  the  turning  of  short  curves  through  narrow 
streets,  the  passing  over  different  kinds  of  ground  and 
foundations,  the  varying  strains  on  the  different  parts  of  their 
machinery,  etc.,  —  and  that  they  would  have  to  bring  every 
piece  of  the  machinery  to  the  experimental  works  at  Somer¬ 
ville  and  have  it  smashed  before  they  would  be  satisfied  of 
its  safety.”  An  admitted  experiment  —  untried  and  proble¬ 
matical.  Now,  I  want  to  say  emphatically,  with  Mr.  Allen,  f 
one  of  their  own  witnesses,  and  one  of  the  proposed  incor- 


10 


porators  too,  I  understand,  “  it  first  ought  to  be  tried  in  some 
place  where  it  would  not  interfere  with  property  and  the 
rights  of  the  people.”  They  ought  not  to  have  the  streets 
of  Boston  as  an  experimental  station  in  which  to  test  their 
patents.  They  have  no  right  to  experiment  on  the  public. 

For  Capt.  Meigs,  himself,  the  inventor,  I  have  the  greatest 
respect.  Every  one  admires  him  for  his  genius,  persever¬ 
ance  and  enthusiasm.  He  would  not  be  the  great  inventor 
that  he  is  were  he  not  enthusiastic.  But  he  reminds  me  of  an 
old  doctor  who  spent  much  valuable  time  in  compounding  a 
certain  cure  for  Asiatic  cholera.  It  was  going  to  be  a  great 
blessing  to  the  human  race  —  only  he  had  nobody  to  try  it 
on.  So  with  Capt.  Meigs,  his  invention  may  be  all  right, 
it  may  prove  useful  somewhere  else,  but  like  the  old  doctor, 
there  is  no  demand  for  his  medicine  here.  The  necessity 
does  not  exist. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen ,  I  fear  I  have  taken  more 
of  your  time  than  I  at  first  intended.  I  know  the  difficulties 
that  surround  you  in  settling  questions  of  this  kind.  I  know 
how  pleasant  it  is  to  do  pleasant  things  for  pleasant  people, 
especially  when  they  put  their  claims  in  a  friendly,  and  very 
often,  personal  manner.  One  naturally  likes  to  consent. 
It  is  not  the  worst  side  of  human  nature  by  any  means ;  but 
it  needs  watching.  I  speak  from  experience.  Last  year  the 
legislature  voted  a  large  sum  of  money  out  of  the  treasury 
to  a  certain  individual,  a  great  engineer,  thought  to  be  de¬ 
serving  of  some  consideration  on  the  part  of  the  State.  He 
had  no  legal  claim,  but  there  was  some  equity  in  it.  I 
thought  so  myself,  and  we  voted  him  the  money.  But  the 
Commonwealth  was  fortunate  in  having  a  governor  to  super¬ 
vise  our  work  who  wielded  a  vigorous  veto  pen,  and  upon 
reflection,  we  corrected  our  mistake  aud  sustained  the  veto. 

But,  as  I  have  said  before,  Capt.  Meigs  is  not  the  real 
party  here  before  you.  It  is  this  proposed  corporation, 
which  (if  it  gets  an  existence)  may  yet  rise  up  and  defy  the 
people  and  the  power  that  made  it,  just  as  the  Elevated  Rail¬ 
way  Company  of  New  York  did  last  year,  though  the  gov¬ 
ernor’s  timely  veto  postponed  the  conflict.  It  is  this  corpo¬ 
ration  with  which  you  have  to  deal,  —  these  capitalists  and 


V 


11 

incorporators.  Others  have  rights  as  well  as  they.  Before 
fastening  upon  our  city  this  public  nuisance,  reflect,  gentle¬ 
men,  on  the  consequences.  Boston  is  justly  proud  of  the 
beauty  of  her  buildings  and  the  cleanliness  of  her  streets. 
She  is  entitled  to  protection  from  the  unnecessary  encroach¬ 
ment  of  this  unsightly  structure.  The  people  have  a  right 
to  light  and  air,  and  to  the  free,  unobstructed  use  of  the 
highways.  The  hard  earnings  of  those  now  dead,  confidingly 
placed  in  the  hands  of  trustees  for  the  benefit  of  surviving 
widows  and  children  —  represented  by  many  a  noble  building 
throughout  our  city  —  should  be  sacred  from  the  dangers  of 
mere  speculation  and  adventure  ;  and  the  owners  of  little 
homesteads  as  well  as  the  proprietors  of  large  estates  all 
equally  appeal  to  you  now  in  time  against  this  threatened 
invasion  of  their  property  and  their  rights.  If,  after  years 
of  petitioning,  the  moneyed  friends  of  Capt.  Meigs  have  not 
confidence  enough  in  his  invention  to  build  a  half  mile  of 
full  size  track  and  equipment  somewhere,  why  compel  Bos¬ 
ton  to  pay  tribute?  Why  place  our  citizens  and  taxpayers 
at  the  mercy  of  a  merely  experimental  enterprise  placed 
under  the  control  of  a  clique  of  capitalists  with  all  the 
dangerous  powers  and  authority  of  a  heartless  corporation? 
and  this  too,  without  any  public  necessity  !  It  is  not  fair ; 
it  is  not  wise ;  it  cannot  be  just  legislation. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee  .*  If  I  have 
succeeded  in  presenting  to  you  the  objections  to  this  bill  and 
proposed  legislation  according  to  the  facts  and  my  own  con¬ 
victions,  as  in  the  time  allowed  me  I  have  endeavored  to  do, 
then  my  duty  to  those  whom  I  here  represent  and  to  you,  is 
ended.  I  recognize  that  there  your  more  serious  duty  only 
begins.  It  is  for  you,  gentlemen,  under  the  obligations  of 
conscience  and  official  oaths  to  finally  determine  this  ques¬ 
tion  by  your  votes ;  and  I  feel  that  the  important  interests 
of  so  many  thousands  of  our  people,  both  rich  and  poor,  will 
not  suffer  at  your  hands. 


